Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20100050 | Reportability--Colon: Would a carcinoid tumor, NOS, of the appendix with perineural or angiolymphatic invasion be reportable if there is no mention of malignancy in the pathology report? |
Carcinoid, NOS, of the appendix diagnosed in 2015 or later is reportable.
For cases diagnosed prior to 2015
Carcinoids of the appendix are reportable when they meet any of the following conditions.
Note that the implants/involvement must be designated as malignant. Many benign tumors will spawn implants that are also benign. If implants are benign, this is not a reportable tumor. |
2010 | |
|
|
20170005 | Reportability/Histology--Testis: Is neoplasm consistent with carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma reportable as a teratoma, NOS, and if yes, what is the histology code? |
Carcinoid type of monodermal teratoma or well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (carcinoid), monodermal teratoma of the testis is reportable. Assign 8240/3 according to the WHO classification for this neoplasm. |
2017 | |
|
|
20160030 | Reportability--Carcinoid: Is a diagnosis of carcinoid heart disease, based solely on clinical information and no pathology, reportable? |
Carcinoid heart disease is not reportable but this diagnosis indicates that the patient likely has a carcinoid tumor which may be reportable. Obtain further information. |
2016 | |
|
|
20190102 | Solid Tumor Rules/Histology--Head & Neck: What is the histology code of an external ear lesion when the dermatopathology report is the only available information (follow-up with the physician or pathologist is not possible) and the final diagnosis is malignant spindle cell neoplasm, most consistent with atypical fibroxanthoma? See Discussion. |
There are two histologies provided in the final diagnosis, malignant spindle cell neoplasm (8004/3) and atypical fibroxanthoma (8830/3). There is a definitive diagnosis of the non-specific histology, but the more specific histology is only described using ambiguous terminology. The external ear (C442) is included in the Head and Neck schema for diagnosis year 2018 and later. The Head and Neck Histology Rules indicate ambiguous terminology cannot be used to code a more specific histology. So ignoring the atypical fibroxanthoma, because it is modified by ambiguous terminology, we are left with a non-reportable site and histology combination (C442, 8004/3). Diagnoses of malignant atypical fibroxanthomas are regularly diagnosed using the syntax above in our area. Follow-up with the physician or pathologist is generally not possible as these cases are received from dermatopathology clinics only. The pathology report is the only information that will be received. If the reportable diagnosis of malignant atypical fibroxanthoma is ignored per the current Solid Tumor Rules, incidence cases will be lost. |
By definition, atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX) is a diagnosis of exclusion. Markers of specific differentiation must be negative. As written in your example, neither histology is reportable for skin. If possible, clarify the behavior of the AFX (8830/1) with the pathologist to determine reportability of the case. |
2019 |
|
|
20190029 | Reportability--Testis: Is demarcated scar tissue with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor and no evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS) reportable? See Discussion. |
The patient is a 34 year old who presented with testicular pain radiating into the abdomen approximately 1 month before orchiectomy in 2018. CT abdomen/pelvis: Multiple focal sclerotic bone lesions. Given the lack of change from July 2014, these are likely benign bone islands. No adenopathy mentioned. He has no prior history of germ cell tumor nor any surgery for any tumor/cancer before this. Pathology: Testis, left, radical orchiectomy: - Demarcated scar tissue (1.3 cm), with atrophic seminiferous tubules and cortical bone consistent with burnt-out germ cell tumor. No evidence of germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS). - Margins are unremarkable. |
Burnt-out germ cell tumor (9080/1) is not reportable. According to WHO Classification of Urinary System and Male Genital Organ, regressed germ cell tumors are germ cell tumors that have undergone partial or complete regression leaving a generally well-delineated nodular focus of scar or fibrosis in the testis. |
2019 |
|
|
20170006 | Diagnostic confirmation--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms (Lymphoma): To code "3" in Diagnostic Confirmation, does the genetic testing need to confirm a specific histology or is it enough that is simply rules out others? See Discussion. |
For example, pathology states: Right axillary lymph node, excision: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (see note). COMMENT: FISH studies were performed that were negative for BCL-6, c-Myc/IgH, CCND1/IgH and IgH/BCl-2 gene rearrangement, ruling out the most common forms of double-hit lymphoma. Flow cytometry studies demonstrated positivity for CD45, CD20, HLA-Dr, CD19, CD11c, CD22, CD30, CD38, CD79b, and FMC7. Low positivity was seen for CD5. No reactivity was seen for CD10, CD23, CD25, CD103 or CD123. |
Both histologic plus immunophenotyping or genetic testing should be positive to assign code 3 for Diagnostic Confirmation. The Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Neoplasm Coding Manual Diagnostic Confirmation instructions state, assign 3 for Cases positive for neoplasm being abstracted (including acceptable ambiguous terminology and provisional diagnosis) AND Immunophenotyping, genetic testing, or JAK2 is listed in the Definitive Diagnosis in the Heme DB AND a.) Confirms the neoplasm OR b.) Identifies a more specific histology (not preceded by ambiguous terminology). Because the patient was diagnosed with DLBCL by histology, and flow cytometry was positive for CD antigens (immunophenotyping) 20, 22, and 30 for DLBCL, code 3 is appropriate. |
2017 |
|
|
20200054 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018)/Multiple primaries--Liver: When does a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in the same area of the liver get accessioned as a new tumor following TACE/Y90/RFA? If there is a new HCC in the same area as previously treated but it is stated to be recurrent and/or progressive disease, is that evidence of a disease-free interval? If the tumor area is stated to be LR-TR and non-viable, but then a new HCC in that area is diagnosed, does that count as a disease-free interval? See Discussion. |
Example 1: 5/2013 diagnosis of HCC in segment 4B (single tumor), treated with microwave ablation in 7/2013. CT scan in 11/2017 with new 23mm hypodensity in liver segment 4 suspicious for recurrent disease. Clinical assessment in 1/2018: New enlarging lesion in liver most consistent with progression of HCC. Treated with RFA in 2/2018. Is the 2018 occurrence a new primary as imaging stated this was a new lesion? Example 2: 7/2017 diagnosis of HCC in right liver; 2.5 cm lesion in segment 5/6 with a couple of satellites and 12mm lesion in segment 6, treated with Y90 radioembolization. Follow-up note in 11/2017: complete response of treated cluster of lesions in segment 5/6 and lesion in segment 6, increase in size of caudate lesion not amenable for treatment (this lesion was stated to be indeterminate on 7/2017 imaging). Caudate lesion finally stated as LI-RADS5 on 3/2018 imaging and was treated with chemoembolization 6/2018. 7/2018 and 10/2018 Follow-up imaging states LR-TR nonviable lesion in caudate lobe. 8/2019 CT shows caudate lobe with arterial enhancement, new compared to prior imaging, LR-TR viable. MD note states patient has small local HCC recurrence in segment 1 (caudate lobe) with plan to repeat TACE. Is this 8/2019 HCC a new primary as the patient was disease free for greater than 1 year, or is it the same tumor and a single primary? |
Both examples are multiple primaries. Example 1: The 2018 lesion is a new tumor. Abstract multiple primaries based on 2018 Other Sites Solid Tumor Rules, Rule M10, when tumors are diagnosed more than one year apart. Example 2: 2017 diagnosis showed complete response to treatment. 2019 lesion is a new primary based on timing. The General Instructions of the Solid Tumor Rules instruct: Do not use a physician's statement to decide whether the patient has a recurrence of a previous cancer or a new primary. Each scenario should be evaluated separately using the rules as a guide. |
2020 |
|
|
20140033 | Reportability/Ambiguous Terminology--Prostate: Can you clarify why a prostate biopsy diagnosis of “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” is not reportable while a biopsy diagnosis of “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable? See discussion. |
SINQ 20091103 states that prostate biopsies showing “highly suspicious for, but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma, suggest another biopsy” are NOT reportable. However, SINQ 20071056 states that “atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma with insufficient atypia to establish a definitive diagnosis of malignancy” is reportable. This appears to be an issue of semantics with no clearly outlined method to determine reportability of such cases.
We have two recent cases with similar semantic issues and want to know whether they are reportable.
1) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation, highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma, with quality/quantity insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer.”
2) Prostate biopsy with “atypical small acinar proliferation highly suspicious for adenocarcinoma but due to the small size of focus, findings are not definitively diagnostic.” |
Both case examples provided are reportable using instructions for ambiguous terminology. The diagnoses are qualified by the words "highly suspicious" because neither diagnosis is definitive ("insufficient for outright diagnosis of cancer" and "not definitively diagnostic."). However, we follow our instructions for interpreting ambiguous terminology and report these cases.
SINQ 20091103 differs slightly. The final diagnosis in 20091103 declares unequivocally "not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma." That phrase in the final diagnosis negates the ambiguous terminology. The situation in 20071056 is similar to the two examples above - the ambiguous terminology instructions apply. |
2014 |
|
|
20210063 | Solid Tumor Rules (2018/2021)/Multiple primaries--Ovary: How many primaries should be reported and for which primary site(s) when pathologist identifies bilateral ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma with involvement of the left fallopian tube (also showing serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC))? See Discussion. |
Patient is diagnosed July 2021 with high-grade serous carcinoma on ascites cytology. Tumor debulking total abdominal hysterectomy/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in August shows high-grade serous carcinoma involving the right ovary (capsule intact, right fallopian tube is negative), left ovary (capsule ruptured), and fallopian tube. Pathologist has chosen tumor site to be bilateral ovaries in the staging summary, with the left fallopian tube listed as “other tissue/organ involvement” along with uterus, peritoneum, and omentum. Additional findings in staging summary includes serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC). Our interpretation of SINQ 20210025 is that any case with both ovarian and tubal involvement would be coded as a fallopian tube primary if STIC is present, even when the pathologist is clearly calling the case ovarian. If this is correct, then the previous SINQ 20120093 may need to be updated with a date restriction reference since it would be in disagreement with this instruction. If our interpretation is incorrect, then the STIC would be an additional primary per MP/H Rule M11. |
Bilateral ovarian tumors are a single primary per M7. Abstract the STIC as a second primary. SINQ 20210025 is intented to address situations with confliciting information about the primary site. The answers remain unchanged in 2012009 and 20210025. |
2021 |
|
|
20081029 | Multiple Primaries--Brain and CNS: Multiple cavernous hemangiomas diagnosed in 1995 are treated with radiation and steroids in 1996. A 1999 MRI states there is no interval change with the lesions in selected location since 1995. How many new primaries should be reported if a 2006 MRI states there are additional cavernous hemangiomas in other parts of the brain? See Discussion. | 7-03-97 PE: Past history significant for cavernous hemangiomas. Has had radiation and was on high-dose steroids in early 1996. Patient reports subsequent MRI done and neurologist gave "clean bill of health." 1-26-99 MRI BRAIN. Clinical information: history of intracranial cavernous hemangiomas. Comparison with prior brain MRI in 12/15/95. IMP: Upper medullary, right parieto-occipital, left frontal cavernous hemangiomas without interval change in size as compared to 12/15/95.
1-25-06 MRI BRAIN. Clinical info: history of prior radiation for cavernous angiomas. Comparison made with prior exam on 1/26/99. Impression: Multiple, variable sized cavernous angiomas within medulla, pontomedullary junction, midbrain, & cerebral hemispheres. Dominant lesion centered within posterior pontomedullary junction. FINDINGS: 8mm lesion in posterior pontomedullary junction. 2mm lesion within right paracentral portion of medulla. Several less than 5mm lesions noted within brain stem bilateral. Two, less than 1-2mm, areas within right inferior aspect of right and left cerebellar hemispheres. 1cm lesion centered within white matter within right posterior parietal/occipital region. Several small, less than 1-2mm, lesion within surrounding white matter. 3rd dominant lesion within left frontal lobe equal 6mm. Several 1-2mm foci of susceptibility artifact within subcortical white matter of high right and left cerebral hemispheres consistent with small cavernous angiomas. |
Benign and borderline brain and CNS tumors diagnosed January 1, 2004 and later are reportable. Multiple tumors in different brain and CNS sites are separate primaries. Different sites are those with ICD-O-3 topography codes that differ at the first, second, third or fourth character. There are four reportable primaries in the scenario described above. |
2008 |
An official website of the United States government
